1) J.
Allen Hynek was the main civilian scientist, hired by
the Air Force, to debunk UFO cases to the public. (N.B. He started
out as a complete skeptic.) Hynek found that a certain percentage of them
refused his best efforts. His tenure in this job kept him very close to
the Air Force data for approximately 20 years.

2) Walter Webb,
astronomer, became interested in UFOs after having a sighting of his own back in 1951. He also worked with Hynek on project "Moonwatch" in the late 1950's. Webb says the Baker-Nunn network
did pick up anomalous trails
in their later photos. Hynek described them as "oddities."

3) Hynek discovered
cases in "Blue Book" that indicated that UFOs deserved to be studied in depth.(Discovered from a 20 year study for the Air Force.) Some cases described flight characteristics and behaviors that still mystify military
personnel familiar with the world's various aircraft.

4)
Here are two cases investigated by both Hynek and atmospheric scientist Dr.
James McDonald. Their data indicated it was not impossible
that some UFOs may well be advanced "craft," perhaps not of this earth. "Kirtland" was triple-analyzed by Project Blue Book the Condon Study and Dr. McDonald (University of Arizona).

5)
Looking a little more closely at Hynek's time spent as civilian scientific consultant
to the Air Force and what he had to say about it, we find that Hynek eventually
concluded that the Air Force's study of UFOs, "Project Blue Book", was actually
a "non-study." His testimony to same provided here:

Earthlight's
author Paul Devereaux seemed
unaware of Hynek's reanalysis of USAF
Blue Book cases, at
least until after the fact. ..
As stated way back in the 1980's, A. Hendry's
analysis of the reports received at the Center
for UFO Studies over two years showed that
nearly 90 percent were identifiable. .(This
includes daylight disk and nocturnal lights)
Breaking
down the final 10% is where the
problem lies. Paul's work is within the 90%.
(actually, substantially below that - Also see
#15 this page)

Hynek
also stated the Blue Book numbers are
significantly different if one takes into
account
1) how the AF arrived at their final case
determinations and 2) the large
number of high
strangeness cases that were never turned into
Blue Book, but were
turned into the civilian
UFO groups due to the AF "ridicule" factor. (Hynek:
"There are actually 5 - 10 times more high-strangeness cases
than we realize.")

Author's
note: However, as previously indicated, Blue Book did accumulate important
data.

There has been another update to that initial data performed by researcher Brad Sparks in which he states there may be as many as 4000 unexplained ufo cases miscatergorized by USAF.
Scientist James McDonald similarly stated in 1968 at his CASI lecture that from his review of BB cases he estimated that 30-40% of 12,000 cases were Unexplained, or about 3,600 to 4,800. These are mostly military cases and many involve radar.

6) Conclusions of the Colorado Study: Further research
informs us that the conclusions reached by Edward Condon in the Colorado Study(an Air Force sponsored civilian university study of UFOs)were actually erroneous. Although Condon had found "against" UFOs being worthy
of further study, the case data from the study had actually
found an even _greater_ number of unknowns than the Air Force was claiming
at the time.(see #6 inMcDonald Critique)

We also have testimony fromRichard Hallthat the Condon Colorado Study ignored specific data that it had in its possession; data available back then which proved beyond reasonable doubt that some UFOs were not just some fanciful stories fabricated by hoaxers, the press, etc. Here are Hall's own words from a paper he wrote.

A
side note: A skeptical explanation
for UFOs offered by Professor Donald Menzel: Menzel's Mirage Theory of UFOs(and
cited by the Condon Committee) - was mentioned by
Dr. Hynek as being easily refuted by an Air Force study:

8)
THE STANFORD STUDY: Almost thirty years after the Colorado Condon Study, serious study of the "Rockefeller Report" by a
committee from Stanford University, headed by Peter
A. Sturrock, and which included presentations by ufologists concerning updates
to various facets of the phenomena, with awareness of various additional information discussed at the following link,

"further
extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science
will be advanced thereby"

In
light of the above and hearing all additional testimonies offered regarding the
phenomena, other studies performed, etc., the Sturrock committee, in 1997, now found it
prudent to say:

"...it
would be valuable to carefully
evaluate UFO reports since, whenever
there are
unexplained observations,
there is the possibility that scientists
will learn
something new by studying
these observations."

9)
What was found from FOIA lawsuits? Back in the 1970's,
Peter Gersten, lawyer for CAUS (Citizens Against UFO Secrecy), filed a freedom
of information (FOIA) lawsuit against a number of government offices.
Numerous documents were eventually released by the government and received by
December of 1978.

Found
in those releases were various agency discussions concerning UFO cases including
visits of "unknowns" to SAC Air Force bases in 1975.Also
discussed was a well-detailed 1976 incident between a UFO and an Iranian F-4 fighter
plane.

jc 10/10/2008:IMPORTANT BULLETIN) The above 1976 case is now more than simply hearsay from released FOIA documents. One of the previously documented Iranian pilots, Parviz Jafari- now a retired General - is part of an extremely impressive group of personnel from several countries who testified regarding their own personal UFO cases at the Washington D.C., USA Press Club less than a year ago, in November 2007. (Jafari video at UTube as long as they keep it there.)

A newspaper article provided at this next
link details that Iranian case (amongst others). Brad Sparks, cofounder of CAUS and prime consultant on the
FOIA lawsuits against the CIA & NSA, wrote me to correct some of the information
in the Washington Post article.

10)
Out of that same lawsuit, more documents were released and
received by 1981 reaffirming those cases and mentioning others including a 1978
UFO flyover of a Kuwait oil pumping station in which a shutdown and restarting
of the auto-protected pumps
were apparently initiated by the UFO.

That
same year, Peter Gersten released an article detailing those releases and what
he felt was the significance of the lawsuit and its resulting public information.

11) Regarding CUFOS(Center for UFO Studies -
the organization formed in 1973 and led by Dr. J. Allen Hynek until his death
in 1986): From his many years of study regarding UFOs, Hynekeventually
became a "qualified" believerand a strong advocate for serious study of
the topic. This author having subscribed to and carefully read CUFOS journals
for a number of years, has personally found it to be a most important, serious,
scientific research organization. CUFOS
continues, to this day, to work towards a scientific resolution to the UFO enigma
via various projects, analyses, etc., and continues down the path originally
charted by Dr. Hynek and associates.

12)
Regarding NICAP(National Investigations
Committe on Aerial Phenomena 1956-1980,
led by Major Donald E. Keyhoe for many years):
Included here is a presentation of some information regarding the originalNICAP.
Also delineated therein
is the formation of a relatively "new NICAP" web site(Francis
Ridge site coordinator)and its important role in
modern ufology which began sometime around March/April 1998.

13)
Some other personal findings of this author: Thinking
about Cooper's claim of a UFO landing at Edwards AFB in May 1957, approximately
six months before Kirtland my attention returned to the three 1957 cases, two
of which I was positive were verified realities. I knew that Blue Book, Condon
and McDonald had verified Kirtland. Additionally, to my utter amazement, a
neighbor of mine was dating someone from the Sebago when that case occurred, so
I also knew it wasn't just something the papers made up. I decided to look closer at the dates
I had for these events. The cases below are listed with the dates I originally
thought were correct:

14)
Here is some data from the Kirtland, Sebago & Stokes cases, plus data from
two previously displayed cases ("Navy
5/65" & "Redlands
2/68"), which indicates, at least to me that at the minimum,
the information submitted by astronaut Gordon Cooper to U.N. hearings, November
1978 concerning his 1951 UFO sightings is most probably truthful and accurate.
He was familiar with "state of the art aircraft" from various countries.
Why would a man in Cooper's position become involved with anything like this back then unless
he believed it 100%?

15) Earthlights
and TST(Tectonic Strain Theory): Here
are some discussions with one of its major proponents which more than adequately demonstrate that the "Earthlights" explanation for UFOs will most likely be
incapable of explaining approximately 10% of cases
unsolved byHynekand
theCondon Committee. (Percentage
pointed out by atmospheric scientist James McDonald in his analysis of same.)N.B. The 10% includes various CE [close encounter]
II and III cases as well as upper atmospheric ones.It
is also highly unlikely that Michael Persinger's neurological work concerning
the electromagnetic stimulation of hallucinations in humans will have much impact
upon this area. There are just too many cases where people
reporting these things are not anywhere near an EMF stimulus and where too many independent witnesses in the same case are having the *exact same*
detailed "hallucination."

16)
Here is a demonstration that simplistic explanations such as "fire balloons released
by hoaxers" are incapable of solving that 1965 Exeter, New Hampshire series of
sightings. This group of sightings has defied researchers' best attempts to find a reasonable
solution for same.

17) 1989/90
Belgium NATO sightings: Here is some specific
data regarding same(N.B.
actually only one selected case out of 632 reports) which unequivocally
demonstrates that, what the Belgium Air Force felt
was an intelligently guided "something" was chased by jet aircraft for
75 minutes, captured on radar and gun camera film, exhibited flight behavior well
in excess of that which our present day aircraft are capable and produced no sonic
booms. The case impressed the upper echelon of the Belgium
NATO military enough for them to bring it to the public's attention.

Note: This data appears to be supportive of some of Hynek's & McDonald's hypotheses. Although black projects are being considered, the
data appears well in-excess of what we are capable at this time.

The previous sighting was witnessed by police on the ground.
Numerous reports from various Belgium sightings detailed triangular craft with
white lights on three corners and a pulsing red light
in the center which, in some of the reports, detached itself
from the main craft. These testimonies were given by both gendarmes and
ordinary citizens.

jc 10/10/2008:Important Bulletin #2) Wing Commander (at the time of the reported event)of the Belgium Air Force Wing, Major General (retired)Wilfried DeBrouwer, is part of the group (previously mentioned) who testified at the Washington, D.C. USA Press Club in November 2007.(De Brower testimony in English begins a little past midway of the video for as long as stays at UTube. DeBrouwer interview in original language.)

18a)Illinois,
USA 2000 (Also of great
interest): Although other sightings have been claimed in the United States, NIDS(National Institute of Discovery Science - pdf file) has verified
the existence of a fully
documented caseof a triangular craft(s)
witnessed by a number of police
in Illinois, USA (January 2000) and has disagreed
with a proposed solution for same by a prominent science skeptic. NIDS
is a privately funded organization composed of serious-minded, well-educated
individuals, retired police officers, and includes Edgar Mitchell, sixth man
to walk on the moon.

Do
we honestly believe what was seen in this case is the planet Venus or a hoax? If this object is not
what
it appears to be, exactly what is it and who on earth owns these craft? Why
are there other similar military-verified cases to this? Is this sighting connected in any way with the Belgium sightings? If it is not a military "black project," what is your solution? Would they be testing it over
civilian population? Why do similar cases from the past, having no adequate explanation after thorough investigation and analysis, continue to baffle researchers throughout the world?

Bulletin:As mentioned previously, in August/Sept. 2004, NIDS revised it's findings on the triangles and has said their statistical analysis of three independent databases has demonstrated that they " cannot say whether these are US Air Force aircraft. We simply don't know . . . But it does not appear to be consistent with the covert patterns of deployment we saw with the F-17 and
B-2 prior to their acknowledgement.This is open, even brazen.(Usethisor this if link fails). . . 'neither the agenda nor the origin of the Flying Triangles are currently known.' "

After
one carefully examines some of the military-verified, etc. cases I've presented,
it is not difficult to see why some researchers are gathering and examining data
concerning various animal mutilation(information in index) and "claimed abduction" cases which some think could possibly be related
to same. They are also looking into the possibility that perhaps some percentage
of these people might not be either crazy, hoaxing, lying or merely looking for
publicity or attention.

18c)
Possibility
of a DSP (Defense
Satellite Program) verification:
Although a DSP verification was claimed for the Iranian case, it was countered by
UFO researchers who presented evidence there just wasn't conclusive proof from
the available data. Click the following for the reasons these researchers disagreed with the claimed verification.

19)
Ramifications from theCAUS
split between the basically
conservative Barry
Greenwood and lawyer Peter Gersten, who
has
decided to "run the ball" with what he's got, refocuses our
collective attention. Gersten, who has appeared inactive in the
proceedings of CAUS for the
past 18? years apparently wasn't
as inactive as we thought. Evidentally he has joined forces with
Steven
Greer's Disclosure Project and "someone" (Gersten?
Greer?) has been
out gathering videotaped direct
UFO witness testimonies given by various government
personnel, derived from names noted in a number of FOIA
documents accrued via lawsuits. They are trying to
bring this
to congress and ask for hearings.

When one again considers the thoroughly
verified sightings
documented at this web site, it is not impossible this move
on
their part could turn out to be extremely important, however,
only time will
tell its true significance.

20)
Addendum regarding Dr. Hynek as a proposed "cloak and
dagger" figure: Here is some solid historical evidence that demonstrates it is
most unlikely that Hynek, as has been claimed by some people, was a "mole" for
the Air Force or the CIA.

Anyone who still believes this about Hynek should definitely click
below and ask themselves why

1) a person in that supposed role would have written
the things he did in the following Newsweek and Post articles, and

2) why people
that worked closely with him never got even a hint of Hynek's supposed clandestine
activity.

21) Jimmy
Carter's claimed 1969 UFO sighting: My summation of and response to several
UFOMind discussions regarding same, and a comparison
with a sighting of my own which occurred approximately two years earlier.

22) Brazil - A startling development: In May 2005, the Brazilian Air Force (FAB) decided to release it's files concerning UFOs and has admitted it has been studying them since 1954. They do not know where they are from but they are convinced they are real.

This researcher believes, when the over-all evidence and counter-evidence is reviewed and taken in context with other existing military cases, there is certainly enough solid evidence to say that at least _some_ of the UFOs reported are 100% legitimate, extremely technologically advanced, and not from anywhere we can pin down. I believe a solid case has been made in this regard on this website.